reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker expresses concern about frauds interfering with self-determination and the voice of the Aboriginal community. They criticize an Aboriginal advisory group for not effectively communicating with grassroots communities. The speaker states that the community does not want initiatives like the yellow rose statement and feels that there is an agenda at play to initiate a UN agenda. They emphasize that Aboriginal people on the ground are not concerned about the Ulurey voice and that elders were not consulted. The speaker highlights that the community has been repeatedly told about these issues.

Speaker 0 argues that abortion is murder and frames it as a ritual akin to human sacrifice, claiming civilizations like the Incas and Vikings killed people to appease gods and gain power. They insist abortion isn’t ritualistic, reference an abortion truck outside the Democratic convention, and challenge the idea that abortion is a right, suggesting that abortion is the only right people have. They express empathy for individuals who might face pregnancy decisions, recounting childhood conversations about a 12-year-old farmworker who might be pregnant from rape, and acknowledge sadness about abortion, but insist that now abortion is “the only right you have.” Speaker 1 pushes back by denying that abortion is a ritual and emphasizes that people do not have the right to keep someone from taking a medical injection or consuming unknown products, arguing that the only right claimed is to murder one’s own children. They describe the statement as dark and urge Speaker 0 to reconsider their stance. Speaker 0 responds with a personal perspective as a father, asserting that the most important thing in life is having children and that one’s children are what will matter most. They reject the notion that jobs or material concerns are paramount and criticize the idea of just killing one’s children. They apologize to Brookie for the upset but maintain their view that abortion is grotesque and sad, noting that many people who have abortions are not happy about it. Speaker 1 contends they don’t care about what Speaker 0 says and asserts a lack of interest in further discussion. Speaker 0 elaborates on the idea that the issue is highly ideological and that the reality of abortion is often hidden behind abstractions. They argue that a human being is beheaded with a knife inside a woman, insisting that if beheading didn’t take place, that person could have led a different life, and that it is not for us to kill people simply because they are “in the way.” They warn that if it is permissible to kill children who are in the way, then the elderly or even others could be killed as well, concluding with the assertion that you can’t do that. Speaker 1 reiterates that abortion is a matter of human rights, while Speaker 0 maintains that there is no human right to kill people, insisting that killing people is the enemy of human rights and that the human right is to live. The conversation ends with an unresolved tension between preserving life and recognizing individual rights, framed by extreme positions about abortion and its moral implications.

The speaker discusses the deception surrounding the rule of state from businesses, claiming that the government lied about consulting with the old people. They mention that the current leaders controlling the country are predominantly white. The conversation then shifts to the greed and desire for control over the country's rich mineral resources, such as diamonds, gold, and uranium. The government and big business are said to be working hand in hand, making it difficult for the people, including both Aboriginal and Australian individuals, to retain control. The speaker concludes by stating that according to the old people, everyone is considered equal, regardless of race.

The speaker congratulates Australians for rejecting the voice to Parliament and the Uluru Statement. They argue that welcome to country ceremonies and acknowledgments of country perpetuate racial division and deny citizenship and sovereignty to all Australians. They criticize the rituals as culturally wrong, disrespectful, and patronizing. The speaker calls for an end to these practices, stating that they have lost their meaning and only serve as virtue signaling. They urge unity and respect for Aboriginal culture, emphasizing that Australians want to move forward together as one nation.

Meibungari Cindy Roberts, a member of the Wedgibul tribe, urges Australians to understand the implications of the upcoming referendum. She warns against the government's lack of transparency and manipulation. Roberts believes that the referendum will lead to darker days and opposes it as a First Nations woman. She emphasizes the importance of knowing the true intentions behind voting yes or no and advises people to trust their spirit, heart, and soul. Roberts states that the majority of tribes, including her own, do not support the referendum. She criticizes the government for not consulting with her people and highlights the racist nature of the proposals. Ultimately, she urges Australians to never trust the government, as it has not acted in the best interest of Indigenous communities in the past.

The discussion centers on the way lawmakers reference religion in foreign policy and whether that approach is effective. Speaker 0 asks the audience how many think a respected lawmaker like Ted Cruz uses the Bible to justify aid to Israel, even if he doesn’t know the verse, and whether that is the best approach. Speaker 1 responds by referencing Ted Cruz’s Genesis twelve three, and notes that many find that off-putting when contrasted with the New Testament, specifically Paul’s writings about the new flesh not being the same as the people in the old covenant. Speaker 1 asks, “Yes. Romans nine?” and agrees with the sentiment. Speaker 0 then asks Speaker 1 if they are Catholic, to which Speaker 1 replies that they are converting Catholic from Judaism, revealing that they are ethnically Jewish. The exchange confirms Speaker 1’s Jewish ethnicity. Speaker 0 brings up concerns about APAC, asking if Speaker 1 has concerns about APAC. Speaker 1 confirms that they do. Speaker 0 notes that some people tell them that criticizing APAC equates to being anti-Semitic, asking whether this is true. Speaker 1 calls that notion ridiculous and says it’s great to have concern for one’s country. The conversation shifts to APAC’s influence. Speaker 0 presents a characterization (as a possible summary of Speaker 1’s view) that APAC represents a form of prioritization that cuts in line, away from the American people. Speaker 0 asks whether this is a fair summary. Speaker 1 answers affirmatively, “100%.” Finally, they articulate the core idea: the public votes and are citizens, but a separate group is described as receiving higher priority for whatever reasons. Speaker 1’s agreement underscores a shared concern that APAC’s influence creates a prioritization that bypasses the ordinary American electorate.

Speaker 0 argues that Sharia law should be above the US constitution, stating, “US constitution which is made by people and the Sharia law is made by Allah. So that is the all the way above. That has to be definitely in the land, not for the America, for the whole world would be above.” In other words, Sharia law is superior to the US constitution and should be established not only in America but worldwide. Speaker 1 agrees with the idea, reiterating the claim by asking, “So that should be above the US constitution.”

The speaker suggests that the AEC and NTEC should change their approach to remote polling, as there is manipulation and overpowering of vulnerable Aboriginal people by unions. They believe that if cameras were present in these communities, Australia would see what really happens. Speaker 1 criticizes the focus on trivial matters instead of addressing serious issues like suicide, rape, and unemployment in these communities. They urge for real questions and government accountability.

Speaker 1 states that to be convinced there is no white genocide in South Africa, President Trump would need to listen to South African voices, including those of his friends. Speaker 1 believes that if there was an Afrikaner farmer genocide, his minister of agriculture would not be present. Speaker 0 claims there are thousands of stories, documentaries, and news stories about the genocide. Speaker 0 offers to show articles as evidence. Speaker 1 states that with or without parliament, people are going to occupy land.

The speaker discusses the difference between equity and equality. They explain that equality refers to equal opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their background. On the other hand, equity focuses on ensuring equal outcomes for everyone. The speaker expresses their preference for equality over equity.

I stand with Jamil, who opposes the Uluru Statement canvas and wants to burn it. He believes it is a disrespectful act with false signatures. We should vote against any constitutional change.

The speakers begin by acknowledging the creator spirit and ancestors. They express the need for unity and respect for the custodians of the land. Speaker 2 discusses the government's lack of consultation with indigenous tribes and the imbalance of power. They criticize the government for prioritizing their own interests and robbing the Australian people. Speaker 2 explains the history of colonization and the lack of consent given by indigenous people. They argue against being included in a constitution that doesn't apply to them. The speakers warn against the government's agenda and urge people to hold them accountable by voting. They emphasize the importance of unity and engagement.

Speaker 0 questions if anyone was forced to get vaccinated, specifically referring to a comment made by Dr. Kuat. Speaker 1 confirms that they made the comment and states their belief that nobody was forced to receive the vaccine. They explain that mandates and requirements are determined by governments and health authorities, and that individuals were given the choice to get vaccinated or not. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that many Australians would disagree with Speaker 1's statement.

The speaker discusses the history of the push for a treaty and constitutional change for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia. They highlight the fraudulent nature of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the lack of representation and transparency in Aboriginal organizations. The speaker also addresses the issues of health disparities, misuse of royalty payments, and the need for accountability and tangible results. They reject the voice to parliament and call for real change and unity among all Australians.

I am a family-oriented Australian senior who wants to be treated just like any other person. I believe that voting no is the right choice because it ensures that our voice will be heard.

The speaker discusses the various campaigns and efforts made towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander constitutional recognition in Australia. The initial campaign, called You Me, Unity, focused on preserving indigenous languages in the constitution but failed to gain support. It was then rebranded as the Recognize campaign, highlighting the need to address racial powers in the constitution. However, this also failed to gain indigenous consent. The Referendum Council then organized national dialogues, resulting in the creation of the Statement from the Heart. Some delegates at the Uluru Convention consented to a referendum on constitutional recognition through the endorsement of this statement. However, many Aboriginal people are skeptical of these efforts and do not support constitutional recognition. The speaker questions the grassroots nature of the movement and urges others to voice their opposition to constitutional reform.

The speaker questions the effectiveness of the constitution and expresses concern about creating new organizations that may fail. They believe that the money spent on the referendum could have been used to address issues like homelessness and struggling families. The speaker believes that the voice created by the referendum will not bring people together but instead divide them further. They emphasize the importance of grassroots involvement and urge elected officials to listen to the community's needs. The speaker questions the actions of representatives in parliament and questions the need for a voice when it only leads to hate.

I don't support the Uluru statement or the way Aboriginal communities are being handled. The money meant for us never reaches us. We need jobs, not overlapping services. We don't have shops, just alcohol and drugs. Don't make decisions for us without listening to us. Don't use me or my family to support something that will make our situation worse. This is not about us, it's about an agenda that won't help us out of the mess we're in.

Not all indigenous people want their voices heard, contrary to popular belief. While many individuals genuinely aim to improve things, it is important to acknowledge that we are not a homogenous group. There are numerous Aboriginal people who are voting against certain proposals.

We fully support the Uluru statement from the heart, including voice, treaty, and truth. A voice to parliament is crucial. Speaker 1 expresses frustration about not getting what they want intentionally. Speaker 0 disagrees with the excitement and believes they don't need anyone to speak on their behalf.

Speaker 1 believes the justice system is being compromised for political gain. Speaker 0 thinks the situation reveals widespread corruption and distrust in institutions. Speaker 1 wonders why charges aren't dropped, but Speaker 0 has no answer. They agree on the need for change.

A non-Aboriginal person claims to speak on behalf of all Aboriginal people and wants to discuss the voice with the Prime Minister. However, another person disagrees and believes that decisions should be made by the Aboriginal community themselves. They emphasize the importance of speaking up for their community, especially for the younger generations who may not be aware of the situation. The speaker expresses concern about outsiders causing trouble and urges them to listen and unite as one voice.

The Australian government once implemented the voice of parliament, but it goes against Aboriginal protocol for one person to speak on behalf of many tribes. The voice to parliament could be used as a way to bypass the original owners and custodians of the homelands. This could lead to the government voting on matters that affect the First Nations people, using stolen land as a weapon against them.

During a discussion, Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about a comment made regarding vaccination. Speaker 1 confirms making the comment and Speaker 0 challenges it, stating that people in Australia were forced to get vaccinated to keep their jobs. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that vaccine mandates are determined by governments and health authorities, and nobody was forced to take the vaccine. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that many Australians would not agree with Speaker 1's viewpoint.

Speaker 0 expresses concern about the perceived dispossession of white people in various aspects of society. Speaker 1 argues that this is not dispossession but rather an expansion of equality and civil rights. Speaker 0 counters by referencing the first citizenship law, which aimed to reserve naturalization for free white persons. Speaker 1 acknowledges the flaws of America's founding fathers but emphasizes the ideal of equality for all. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that the arrival of diverse populations will change the country his ancestors built. Speaker 1 concludes the conversation, acknowledging the time taken.